The Cameo Battle: When Trademark Fame Meets The Fame Test

In a dispute that reads like a Hollywood screenplay, artificial intelligence (AI) company OpenAI finds itself locked in a legal battle with celebrity video company Cameo. The video company operates a service allowing users to commission personalized video messages from celebrities, who receive payment for their messages. However, the heart of this case is not cutting-edge AI technology; it is the age-old question of fame itself.

The dispute centers on OpenAI's intent to add a tool, also named “Cameo”, which would enable users to create AI-generated videos featuring celebrity likenesses. Whether these celebrities have consented to such use remains a critical unresolved question in the litigation. The trademark conflict pits Cameo's established platform, built on authentic celebrity recordings, against OpenAI's proposed AI tool generating “synthetic” celebrity replicas. What began as a straightforward trademark dispute has evolved into a fundamental examination of what constitutes trademark fame under U.S. law.

In October, Cameo filed suit against OpenAI for trademark infringement in federal court. Cameo successfully secured a temporary restraining order preventing OpenAI from using the mark “Cameo” in connection with their video generation software. However, OpenAI is not ready for its final curtain call, asserting that Cameo lacks sufficient fame to support their claims of trademark dilution.

OpenAI argues Cameo's brand recognition among the public falls well short of the demanding legal standard for trademark fame. OpenAI points to Cameo's relatively brief existence (founded in 2016), limited mainstream media presence (mentions in three television shows), social media marketing efforts, approximately ten million sales, and millions of followers across platforms. While these metrics might appear impressive, OpenAI contends they pale in comparison to the fame requirement established in federal dilution cases, pointing to a previous case regarding Pinterest, who was unable to prove fame despite the twenty-five million monthly active users on the platform.

Courts have consistently set an extraordinarily high bar to establish trademark fame. Classic examples of marks meeting this threshold include COCA-COLA, McDONALD's, NIKE, and similar mega-brands with decades of sustained, nationwide marketing campaigns, billions in annual sales, and near-universal recognition across all demographics. By contrast, brands with substantial followings in their industries, even those with millions of customers, have repeatedly failed to meet this standard. The Pinterest decision exemplifies this principle, as do numerous cases involving successful e-commerce platforms, regional retailers, and category leaders that nevertheless lack the breadth of recognition the statue demands.

For that reason, Open AI alleges that the Cameo metrics are insufficient when it comes to meeting the legal definition of “fame,” and that the insufficiencies should result in the dismissal of claims related to trademark dilution. OpenAI asserts that the insufficiencies are shown through failure to identify specific advertising campaigns, refusal to disclose marketing budgets, vague geographic sales distribution, and lack of evidence of actual financial harm resulting from the alleged infringement. OpenAI, through these alleged omissions, attempts to suggest that while the Cameo excels at facilitating celebrity connections, it falls short of representing their own star status when it comes to legal fame.

If the court agrees with OpenAI's assessment and dismisses some of Cameo's claims, it could significantly narrow the lawsuit's scope while establishing a high bar for establishing fame for future dilution claims. For now, we await for the end of this saga of names and fame to be written. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.